9. People are only responsible when they have alternatives from which they can select.

10. People are responsible only when they can exercise control and are able to make choices.

11. Property rights define the limits of personal control and choices and thus responsibility.

12. Property and the individual
rights associated with property are moral concepts arising solely from
the special intellectual qualities and requirements of the human mind
and life.

13. Neither property nor the
concept “property” can exist apart or separately from the human
intellect that make either possible; they are (metaphysically and
epistemologically) genetically subsequent to and dependent upon the
unique nature and exercise of the human mind.

14. Physical property (ownership) does not arise or occur from mere possession of “X.”

15. Human intellect and creativity are integral components necessary to transform “X” from its raw state into property.

16. Intellectual (non-physical)
property arises from human intellect and creativity and are necessary
to transform idea “X” from its raw state into property.

17. No one has a right to another
person’s physical property without his permission. Coercive
appropriation of such property creates a situation of involuntary
servitude/slavery. Property “X” would not exist without human
intellectual and creative input.

18. No one has a right to another
person’s intellectual property without his permission. Coercive
appropriation of such property creates a situation of involuntary
servitude/slavery. Property “X” would not exist without human
intellectual and creative input.

19. Fraud (misrepresenting
ownership of physical or intellectual property) is (metaphysically and
epistemologically) genetically subsequent to and dependent upon the
real-world possibility of legitimate ownership of physical and/or
intellectual property.

20. Fraud is a moral concept and can only occur in type of action “A” in which control and responsibility is possible.

21. Control and responsibility (morality) are possible only when intellectual input and property exist.

22. One cannot be responsible for that which is not under one’s control.

23. Legitimate control can occur only when dealing with one’s own property.

24. Fraud involving intellectual
property (a particularized expression of idea/information “X”) can
exist if and only if one can be held responsible for a particularized
expression of an idea.

25. A person is responsible only for that over which one has control.

26. One can only have legitimate control over that which is one’s property.

27. Fraud involving a
particularized expression of idea/information “X” that is a deliberate
misrepresentation of reality cannot exist in the absence of
intellectual property since the concept (intellectual) “fraud” is
(metaphysically and epistemologically) genetically subsequent to and
dependent upon the concept “intellectual property.” Even fraud
involving physical property cannot exist without an intellectual
component since such physical property “X” only becomes property upon
the application of human intellect and creativity to raw materials.

28. One can engage in legitimate
(economic or non-economic) exchange of “X” only when one has ownership
of “X”; when “X” is one’s property (whether transformed physically
and/or intellectually) over which one has control and responsibility.

29. Plagiarism is a subtype of
(intellectual) fraud. Plagiarism cannot exist in the absence of
personal responsibility/control/property.

30. “Scarcity” is a characteristic of (physical and/or intellectual) property but is not an essential defining trait.

31. An essential, defining trait of
(physical and/or intellectual) property is the existence and
involvement of human intellect and creativity; without the latter, the
former would not exist.

32. Denying the truth and validity
of intellectual property denies the essential and inescapable
involvement of the human intellect in both physical and intellectual
property.

33. Denying the legitimacy of intellectual property invalidates the concept and legitimacy of physical property.

33. Denying the fundamental role of
human intellect in property denies the essential nature and
requirements of human intellect in life.

34. Without the recognition and legitimacy of property, the exercise of morality becomes impossible in a social context.

35. Without the recognition and legitimacy of property, the exercise of rights becomes impossible.

36. Without the recognition and legitimacy of rights, freedom becomes impossible.

37. Divorcing human intellect from property removes the essential role of the individual and his life.

38. Without human intellect as the
foundation for morality, rights, and freedom –– as central to social
interactions as delineated by property –– only physical force and
coercion remain as means of social interaction.

39. The supremacy of force and coercion in social life is the essence of statism.

40. Denying the intellect and life of the individual is the essence of collectivism.

41. Statism and collectivism are incompatible with morality, rights, property, freedom, and the individual.

42. Denying the existence and
legitimacy of intellectual property undermines the foundation of
morality, rights, property, freedom, and the individual; such denial
supports and is integral to statism and collectivism.

The anti-intellectual property
people are guilty of “definition by nonessentials.” A proper definition
focuses on those traits that explains the most about “X” and how “X”
operates. Without human intellect, there is no such thing as property
of any kind, physical or intellectual. Anti-intellectual property
people equate property with mere physicality, thus evading what is most
fundamental about property and necessary for its very existence: the
human intellect.

The anti-intellectual property
people are also aligned with economic materialism: the notion that the
external, the physical determines human intellect; that those external
factors are what is most important about people: that “it is not the
consciousness of men that determines their existence, but, on the
contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.”
(Karl Marx, in the Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.) This is a reversal of cause-and-effect.

The anti-intellectual property
people also implicitly endorse the mind/body dichotomy by illogical
maintaining that the mind (intellect) is irrelevant to property rights;
that mind is, in essence, divorced from the body (the physical) (the
material) rather than being integral to human existence and property.

The anti-intellectual property people also deny cause-and-effect when they divorce the creation from the creator, i.e., separate
property from the intellect of an individual that is required for any
and all creation. They focus only on the result (the effect) (the
intellectual property) as though such a result magically comes into
being and would exist without the cause (human intellect). This view is
consonant with how statists view creators and producers: they are
magical beings who will continue to function and provide goods
regardless of what chains are placed upon them and regardless of how
their rights are violated.